Page 2 of 2

Re: Dirty diesel, or NOT so dirty diesel

Posted: Tue Oct 17, 2017 5:24 pm
by Paul
Peteski wrote: Tue Oct 17, 2017 4:38 pm
Col Lamb wrote: Tue Oct 17, 2017 11:13 am
The Company that the writer used has a very limited turnover and the source of their funding is questionable hence please do not take the results as literal.
Okay if the results are not literal, we still know how unrealistic the current Euro emissions test cycle is. It's laughable and soon to be replaced by hopefully something much closer to reality.
..although it was only ever meant to be used as a relative comparaison tool....manufacturers merely complied with the test as defined by “Europe”

Re: Dirty diesel, or NOT so dirty diesel

Posted: Tue Oct 17, 2017 7:12 pm
by Deleted User 1874
Paul wrote: Tue Oct 17, 2017 5:24 pm
Peteski wrote: Tue Oct 17, 2017 4:38 pm
Col Lamb wrote: Tue Oct 17, 2017 11:13 am
The Company that the writer used has a very limited turnover and the source of their funding is questionable hence please do not take the results as literal.
Okay if the results are not literal, we still know how unrealistic the current Euro emissions test cycle is. It's laughable and soon to be replaced by hopefully something much closer to reality.
..although it was only ever meant to be used as a relative comparaison tool....manufacturers merely complied with the test as defined by “Europe”
Well as it says in the article, manufacturers complied with the letter of the regs rather than the spirit. As they would of course, they're not in this to save the planet!